On November 27, 2008, the Iraqi parliament approved a landmark security agreement with the United States. More than half of the parliament voted for the agreement, which now must be approved by the Iraqi people in a nationwide referendum to be held by July 30.

In Washington, however, neither a “yea” nor a “nay” has been heard from Congress on the agreement. Insisting it had the authority to negotiate unilaterally, the Bush administration engaged Congress only symbolically (briefings, etc.) while working out the details with Iraq.

The persistent failure to consult Congress on an agreement that affects U.S. involvement in Iraq threatens the constitutional balance between the executive and legislative branches and sets a dangerous precedent for future American military engagement abroad.

The Obama administration should immediately redress this institutional deformity and submit the agreement to Congress for a vote, even if it is only a symbolic resolution.

Any peacetime U.S. troop presence on foreign territories usually is regulated through Status of Forces Agreements (SOFA) between the United States and host countries. We currently have 115 such agreements. They usually deal with unexciting things, such as how supplies should be delivered and the legal status of military personnel, and come into force upon approval by the President only.

The U.S.-Iraq pact, however, is quite different. The “Agreement on the Withdrawal of the United States Forces from Iraq and the Organization of Their Activities during their Temporary Presence in Iraq,” as the tongue-twisting name reveals, reaches much further than a regular SOFA would. It says U.S. forces should withdraw from Iraqi cities by June 30, 2009, and from all of Iraq by the end of 2011. It requires that U.S. combat troops coordinate with the Iraqi government; deliver prisoners to Iraqi custody; and leave to Iraqi authorities the primary responsibility for monitoring Iraq’s airspace.

Bypassing Congress on the agreement has sent the United States into “a legal no-man’s land,” potentially offering a legal precedent for the President to extend future military occupations without Congressional consent, wrote constitutional experts Bruce Ackerman and Oona Hathaway. As Senators Ted Kennedy (D-MA), Bob Casey (D-PA), and Jim Webb (D-VA) have noted, Americans have a right to know that their elected representatives get to weigh in on any agreement that demands as much blood and treasure as the Iraq war.

Even some prominent conservatives have expressed concern about the lack of Congressional involvement in the agreement. For example, as the Washington Post’s George Will recently wrote, “This deal … covers questions at the center of far-reaching policy debates that rightly require congressional participation – the timetable for the withdrawal of U.S. troops central among them.”

In their Senate days, Barack Obama, Hillary Clinton, and Joe Biden all supported legislation requiring that the President consult with Congress on any agreement involving commitment or risk for the nation. The Bush administration turned a deaf ear, but the new tenants in the White House and Foggy Bottom ought to know better than that.

On March 6, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov met in Geneva for the first time. As is customary at diplomatic meetings, Clinton presented Lavrov with a gift.

So far, so good.

In a play on language used by Vice President Biden during his February speech in Munich, Clinton gave Lavrov a red button with what the U.S. delegation thought had “reset” written on it in Russian. The word was mistranslated, however, and the button actually said “overcharge.”

No good.

Despite the initial foible, Clinton and Lavrov had a productive meeting. The two ministers discussed “the negotiation of a follow-on agreement to the START treaty, and broader areas of cooperation to reduce the number of nuclear weapons and prevent further proliferation,” according to Clinton.

Lavrov also emphasized the prominence of nuclear arms reduction in the meeting. “Special attention was paid to nonproliferation of nuclear weapons and other weapons of mass…destruction, strategic offensive and defensive weapons as well,” he said.

These remarks are particularly encouraging because the Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty (START) is set to expire in December 2009. If START elapses without a follow-on agreement, the treaty’s key verification procedures would disappear since they were not included in the 2003 Strategic Offensive Reductions Treaty (SORT).

Hopefully, when the United States and Russia next meet they will continue to discuss arms control with the goal of reducing their strategic nuclear stockpiles to 1,000 or fewer per side.

The first meeting between Russia and the new Obama administration was promising despite the language mix up. Russia and the United States have many areas in which they can collaborate. Let’s hope they can build on their vital partnership and make significant progress on pressing security concerns in 2009.

The Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty (START) expires in December. While much will need to be done in order for a replacement treaty to be signed and ratified by then, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov got off to a great “start” earlier this month.

Even the reset button mistranslation faux pas could be a positive (no hard feelings, both sides have a laugh, take vodka shots, reduce nukes – simple).

Ideally, the START follow-on treaty will reduce stockpiles to 1,000 or fewer warheads per side with an accompanying comprehensive verification regime. Russia and the United States currently possess around 16,000 nuclear weapons. Nuclear experts Sidney Drell and James Goodby previously have outlined what a 1,000-per-side force structure might look like for the United States.

Much domestic support exists for a new arms reduction treaty. Across the political spectrum, prominent politicians and policy wonks have supported mutual, transparent steps by the United States and Russia to reduce their nuclear arsenals. Especially encouraging is the large number of moderates and conservatives who have spoken out in favor of reducing nukes.

Concluding a replacement to START, however, will require more than vocal support from moderates and conservatives. It will require a two-thirds (67 votes) majority in the U.S. Senate. That means lawmakers will have to put their money where there mouths are.

Getting politicians to do what they say they want to do: not impossible, just challenging. Thankfully, a number of sitting Republican Senators have supported previous arms reduction treaties, as noted in this new chart.

Other than Arlen Specter, Republicans still in the Senate today voted along party lines on the last three nuclear arms treaties. Thus, achieving a two-thirds majority on the replacement to START will prove difficult even with Democrats controlling so many seats in the Senate.

Obama will need to present the treaty to the Senate with well-researched military, political, and economic arguments for ratification in order to garner the broadest possible coalition for approval. The administration should reach out to Senators Lugar, Specter, and McCain during negotiation of the treaty to build bipartisan support. Lugar and Specter are long-time supporters of nuclear arms reductions, and McCain supported reductions during his presidential campaign.

The U.S. government should be more cautious in its statements about Iran’s nuclear intentions. If we want the Iranians to sit at the negotiating table, we need to stop faulting them for things we are not sure about. As our executive director John Isaacs said last month, “Negotiations with Iran are more likely to bear fruit if Iranians don’t feel like the United States is officially accusing them of being dead-set on going nuclear.”

The recent testimony by Director of National Intelligence Dennis Blair is a step in the right direction. Blair told Congress this month that Iran has not yet made an executive decision to convert its low-enriched uranium stocks into highly-enriched fuel that could be used for nuclear weapons. Neither has Iran decided to develop the technology needed to load an atomic bomb onto a ballistic missile, according to Blair.

Whether or not the Islamic Republic has made up its mind to develop a nuclear weapon makes an enormous difference to U.S. strategy. “If we definitely know what Iran wants to do, that they are planning to build a nuclear weapon, then it is indeed a very dangerous situation,” Isaacs noted on NPR’s Morning Edition in February. “If they’re only moving in that direction and haven’t made a final decision, not only does that take some time urgency off, but it also means there’s an opportunity for the Obama administration to try to launch some negotiations with the Iranian leadership.”

Iran can move toward a nuclear bomb “if it chooses to do so,” said Blair (emphasis mine.) Added Blair: “Although we do not know whether Iran currently intends to develop nuclear weapons, we assess Tehran at a minimum is keeping open the option to develop one.” This leaves the window open for U.S.-Iranian diplomacy.

With his carefully picked words, Blair walked a fine line and aimed to strike a cautionary but not overhyped note about available intelligence on Iran’s nuclear program. Blair set a useful example for officials to follow when discussing delicate questions regarding Iran.

Blair’s statements, however, seem to have created quite a bit of confusion. Blair appeared to contradict earlier statements by CIA director Leon Panetta, who told Congress that, based on the information he’d seen, “there is no question” that Iran is seeking a nuclear capability. Something similar happened earlier this month when Joint Chiefs of Staff Chairman Mike Mullen told journalists that Iran had enough fissile material for a nuclear weapon on the same day that Defense Secretary Robert Gates declared that Iran “was not close to a weapon.”

If administration officials can’t get their message straight, how can we expect the Iranians to know where we stand? The Obama administration should stay away from the microphones when debating what is inside the minds of Iranian leaders. Blair’s nuanced language is welcome and should be the standard throughout the executive branch.